Running Times Article - "How Much Mileage"

This article by Kevin Beck is a good discussion of the same issues.

Well... wrote:

This is call a diminishing return. If I'm reading the article correctly, it states that the most effective mileage volume is 70 mpw. This is not saying there's no benefit to 100+. This is simply saying you get the most bang for the buck out of 70.

I have always believed this is just about the sweet spot. I get fit running 70 mpw and can run near my capabilities. I run a little faster on 90 mpw, but its a lot more work and takes substantially more planning, caution to not get hurt, extra care on sleep and nutrition, etc.

It's different for everyone, of course, but there's a nice life to running balance at around 70-75 mpw.

The above quote makes some really valid points. I guess if you're a full time runner who has the time to run over 70 or 100 mpw, the additonal miles will still provide some benefit but at a much lower return vs. going from 40 to 70. Daniels has a nice graph in his book that illustrates the diminishing returns. However, there have been many testimonials on this website that have validated the virtures of high mileage (wejo included). I guess the key here is that for those of us who have full time jobs, familes, etc., getting up over 70 mpw is more difficult and increases the risk of injury. Or as an economist would say, the increase or return from higher mileage over 70 mpw (via faster times)is probably lower than the increase in probability of injury. Of course there are exceptions to this rule as well.

I can't speak for others, but for me 90-100 miles per week is optimal for running performance but not for living my life, and 60-70 miles per week is optimal for living and pretty acceptable for performance. If I earned my paychecks by running I would do more miles, but otherwise there's no way it would be worth it. Kudos to those who want to run doubles for the rest of their lives.

bad connection wrote:

Focused too much on things like VO2max and the like...

Scientists seem to get caught up in measurable things and when VO2max doesn't increase when mileage is increased past 70ish mpw, then they think 70 is ideal. What they forget is that VO2max is only a very small part of the picture and that we are worried about PERFORMANCE. Vo2max and performance are not highly correlated, so it doesn't matter if it stops. There are other physiological aspects that increase due to more mileage.

Got to be careful with things we can measure now. They always become the next "key" thing in science.

This is a good point. I haven't read the rest of the thread or article yet, but if Noakes is involved, and anyone who reads Noakes can attest to this, he stresses that although V02max is important, there are many more factors that go into performance.

From a personal experience, I have run my best when I am at about 80-90 mpw.

90 minutes a day, 2 hours on the weekend. 24 hours in a day. Not too difficult if you make it work. Run to work, shower in the restroom or hopefully your company has a gym.

Alan

I was respomding to your post. I'm not commenting on effectiveness, at least not here, simply to the idea that people are drawn to mileage, and I honestly don't think very many are, because it's "easier." My experience was that "mileage" was not easier but that it was the most important variable.

Out of curiosity, how typical was that 120 mile week and what was the most you'd do for an extended time?

I look forward to reading what I had to say. It's always nice to be able to do that. Hard to comment without that knowledge in front of me.

jtupper wrote:

I look forward to reading what I had to say. It's always nice to be able to do that. Hard to comment without that knowledge in front of me.

Now that's pretty funny! Were you ever interviewed for this article?

It represents a "dumbing down" that was already in the works before the buy-out, as this idiot author (though is not the only one) has had his crap in their pages in previous issues. What exactly would you expect from a mass market periodical?

jtupper wrote:

I look forward to reading what I had to say. It's always nice to be able to do that. Hard to comment without that knowledge in front of me.

Classic!

I know for myself and being a late comer to running that going from 20-30 miles per week and running 5 milers at 6:50 pace when I started at age 33, then running 65-75 mpw into my 40's with little to no speed work got me down to a 6:05/6:15 pace. But then I kind of got stale and leveled off. In the last year or so I dropped my mileage down to 50-60 mpw and added more quality wos like track intervals, repeats, tempos, etc and I managed to get most of my 5 mile times under 6 minute pace at age 48. I think high mileage is important but there is a point of diminished return the higher you go and for every individual runner it varies.

AK-49 wrote:

Now that's pretty funny! Were you ever interviewed for this article?

jtupper = Daniels

And we are fortunate to have him posting here.

JimG wrote:The author's conclusion was the point of diminishing returns seems to be around 70 MPW, at which point you're better off adding strength, plyo, etc. training

Diminishing returns are still returns. The article and the author's conclusion is bunk. Welcome to Runner's World, Part deux: Paris Hilton's training schedule, page 53. Where is the evidence that those 30 "extra" miles will cause injury? In 35 years I haven't seen any. What I have noticed over the years is that the guys who were jumping off boxes, skipping jump-ropes and swimming always had some sort of niggle they were nursing. No coincidence there folks.

I improved quite a lot when I worked up to 60-70 as well and like you, sort of got stuck. But I went the other way and upped the mileage even more. I always found that I'd impove for a bit and stagnate. At that stage, cutting back mileage could produce some short term improvement, but getting to another level always came when I'd go even higher.

get with the program wrote:

AK-49 wrote:

Now that's pretty funny! Were you ever interviewed for this article?

jtupper = Daniels

And we are fortunate to have him posting here.

Re-read it my friend, I think he knows who it is.

Bravo to all who contributed in a positive and well thought out manner. Arguing the science of running with like minded individuals. Unlike the negative brow beatings usually found here. That being said 90% of todays social runner doesn't give a shit about the science, but they still bring their dollars to the shoe companies and the road races. Runners World and now Running Times have to cater to the masses to stay in business. There should be room in these magazines and at our road races for all individuals. Appreciate the high end stuff when you can find it, but don't knock the rest or there won't be any running magazines.

John Paul wrote:

Runners World and now Running Times have to cater to the masses to stay in business.

Sorry, but you're wrong here.

I ran my first 2 marathons as a 37 year old, the best one in 2:35 with some cramping issues in the last 6 miles (was at 2:27 pace until 5 miles to go). As I used to run 800m back in college I was always scared to take the mileage up over 60-70 mpw, but when I did I was surprised how well the body adapted to 100mpw plus, for a while. I manage 7 weeks 100+ for each marathon. The question I still have is if I needed to do it. I ran my best 20 mile runs (at sub-2:25 pace) 8 weeks and 5 weeks before the races. I think the number of weeks I kept over 100mpw wore me down. I got sick, and injured both times about 3 weeks before the races. (I did 16-18 week builds). Quite frankly I think that a 12 week build is all that is necessary, and that a few 100+ weeks help, but I question the number of weeks necessary. Next time I am going to build it up for 3 weeks at that level, and then keep the mileage down around 80 with one LT tempo, one interval practice and one quality long run per week.

BTW,as a 50 hr/wk job guy with a family as well, there are no excuses, anyone can put in the time.

Yeah, god forbid there's be no magazine about running, what would we do and what would this world become without any running magazines?

John Paul wrote:

don't knock the rest or there won't be any running magazines.